Like

Archive through June 23, 2006

 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1501
Registered: Oct-04
Margie: welcome back! With SM (our other regular Forum-lady) off somewhere in outer space the Forum lacks that certain gentility that a woman's presence affords. (not to mention logic! GRIN)

Be here more often, please.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4274
Registered: Dec-03
I agree with all comments. The guy who posted the pics should be in prison. I do not have much experience with forums (surely "fora"). What do moderators do? Read every post before deciding whether it is allowed?
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 2991
Registered: Dec-04
I just checked, something to be straigtened out.
Hold, please.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8686
Registered: May-04
"you've got children. What if they had accessed the Forum when the pics were seemingly everywhere? How do you explain that?"


How do you explain s-e-x? Or, how do you explain someone who prefers to infest an internet forum with such pictures? Either way, I would hope as a parent you have answers for both situations. You will need them someday.


Gentlemen, I don't approve of what was done to this forum. Posting those pictures is the action of a person with a lack of respect for others and who enjoys the idea it might offend or place someone in an awkward position. That they went no further than posting photos is something we should all hope for.


I only scanned through the threads to find where the pictures began and ended, so I really am unaware of what the nature of the photos extended to. Most of what I noticed involved human bodies engaged in actions which produce the very children you wish to protect from any knowledge of such actions.


I understand everyone being upset. And my intent is not to scold anyone for being offended. But, how would you explain this to a child or teenager? Would you label the photos as obscene? You know where I'm headed with this; don't you? What if the photos were of dead bodies blown to pieces by a bomb? Or, possibly cruelty to animals? Which would be worse? Which would you rather your children not see? How would you explain any or all? You can't hope to keep your children from knowing such actions occur. And, I certainly hope you don't try to keep your children from knowing there are people who take joy in imposing their will upon others.


Whether you have children or not, it seems to me you should not be so upset at the photos themself. But, how do you explain to a young person the meaning of s-e-x as portrayed in the photos or of a bomber's mad intent? They will see it or know about it sooner or later. You can't protect yourself or your children from the realities of the world. This is not the first time this has happened on the forum and, unfortunately, it will not be the last. We come to this forum of our own free will and we take the chance of having this happen again. Do we label the photos obscene and fume over the invasion of our privacy? Does that do justice to the photos or serve any purpose in the future?


I assume no one was physically hurt by the photos. That might not be the case if you find yourself or your child in a real world situation where harm is intended. That a person who posts such pictures might escalate their desire to control other people reactions is something I'm more afraid of than photos.


"The guy who posted the pics should be in prison."


Once again you can call me a wild-eyed liberal, but I don't think that's the right place for someone who wishes to play with other people's emotions in this fashion. Not yet, at least. I hope the administrator takes these episodes more seriously than just deleting posts and banning ISP addresses. But, if we are going to live in a free society we should be prepared for intrusions into our lives and our comfort zone. The question, as I see it, is not whether the administrator acted quickly enough. On this forum there aren't many things which stop such a predator from entering uninvited. The question should be how are we equipped to deal with such intrusions. Railing against the administration of the forum isn't the right course IMO. We made our choice when we clicked the address bar to come here. I was quite discouraged to find the photos when I got here. But, I chose to come here.
 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

Orlando, FL

Post Number: 1380
Registered: Dec-03
OK, you're a wild eyed liberal, but in this case I have to agree with you. I too was sad to see what was posted, but I also chose to come here, and won't be run off by a renegade poster who only wishes to shock the unsuspecting.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1504
Registered: Oct-04
All: I think the point raised by so many of the Dawgs is this: the offensive material remained on not just one, but most of the threads for a LONG period of time. And when many of us e-mailed Admin, we got either no answer or a generic "working on it" answer - which many of us have gotten many times in the past.

Most of us come here for information, "party line" chat and general entertainment. We choose to come here because we (usually) feel "wanted." And we try (usually) to maintain some degree of civility.
That part is rather self-regulating. It is the second, and more sinister, part that concerns me. As I understand it, other forums manage to set up filters of one sort or another. My questions are: 1 - how difficult would that be? And 2 - why can't this be done on eCoustics, as well as others?
And yes, Jan, you are a wild-eyed Liberal! OK? (triple grin here)

Respectfully. . .LarryR
 

Silver Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 614
Registered: Nov-05
I know I said I wouldn't be back until the administrator took affirmative action to stop these obscene postings, but I feel the need to add another 2cents worth here before I disappear.

First, where is this "free society" Jan mentions? Society isn't free. Not only does it cost to live in our society, but we have rules to prevent chaos and anar*chy and we agree that those who break those rules should pay the price.
And second, the morality bar was lowered a long time ago and the world suffers for it now. The bar keeps getting lowered - because we allow it - and the world has to contend with more deprevation stuffed into its face. If this sort of obscenity is okay and easily explained to your children, well that's great. Me, I think children should enjoy their innocence for as long as possible before the crap we allowed to happen hits them in the face.

As for the culprit(s) spending prison time - perhaps there is no other way to teach these animals - that's what they are to me. We see animals in the naked form with all their indignity - what seperates us from them? Do we really have to accept this is just something we have to contend with it because we switch on our computers.

The adiminstrator should WAKE UP!

anar*chy - we can't use this word but we can have po-rn shoved in faces for hours on end. Ha!
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1511
Registered: Oct-04
Rantz: you raise a most interesting point here, sir. On this forum, we are blocked when we try to type in s_ex or p_orno or anar@chy - yet degrading pictures come through without a hitch! Something is very wrong here, gents!

Respectfully. . .LarryR
 

Silver Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 615
Registered: Nov-05
Larry - I see your message waiting to be opened. Will pm you soon. Thanks and take care.

One more thing ladies and gents - my forthcoming absence is not because of the po-rn, it is about the lack of action by the administrator to prevent it - or at least get rid of it asap when it appears. A useless protest seeing as how it is a solitary one, nevertheless I doth protesteth all the same.

Till we meet again.

Somewhere, beyond the sea . . .
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4275
Registered: Dec-03
It is good to read the various views of Old Dogs. There is not much to disagree with.

I am just puzzled by what could have been done, in practical terms. Admin cleared up the first batch and then there was another, under a different name.

I will soon click "post message" and you get my opinion; no-one screens it, first. That is a valuable feature of the forum. It means that others, with other objectives, can abuse this freedom.

A few practical points.

1) If you don't want those graphics on your computer, clear the browser's cache.

2) The most offensive and corrupting material could probably be safely be buried from children's view by posting on an audio forum, which is, for them, the most boring place imaginable. So no worries on that question, when it is taken at face value.

3) Our children, at least, have their own accounts on the computer I use.

The material was offensive and potentially corrupting. I agree with MR on that. I do think law should protect freedoms, including that of parents to protect their children from exposure to corrupting material. I can explain why I think stuff like that can be described as "corrupting". So, yes, prison for that guy, please. He is not furthering any defensible cause. Or even trying to.

In the end, I vote for Jan and Rick.

And it is a pleasure to find they agree, at last!
 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

Orlando, FL

Post Number: 1381
Registered: Dec-03
In the end, I vote for Jan and Rick.

Yeah! That's the ticket. LOL!

Whatever do you mean John? Jan and I agree on many things, and others, not so much. Pretty normal stuff I would think.

As for your vote to throw him in prison, I vote NO WAY. Overcrowded now, and a waste of my tax dollar. I vote we just shoot him in the kneecaps.............................
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1513
Registered: Oct-04
Rick: I was thinking of aiming a tad higher? Hmm. . . .

Rantz: If you read this - well, you have my e-mail, sir. Please write, at least.

And I think y'all are great - even when disagreements arise. A very good education for me, and I thank all of you for it.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8692
Registered: May-04
"First, where is this "free society" Jan mentions?"


It is wherever such "information" is allowed to exist. When everything you see, hear or think is controlled by a greater, wiser "society", especially those moments which are private between individual persons, then you do not have a free society. You have totalitarianism. Discrimination is a powerful tool to be weilded by a few.


When how you use the information you are provided is left to the individual, there is a free society. If the information can only be disseminated by a few selected individuals, there is no real freedom. Which society do you choose to be where you must live your life? There are other forums which provide such "security". At the moment you are free to choose one of those other forums. Yet you return here. Should you choose another, you must exist under someone else's rules.



The point I wished to make, and that has once again been "misconscrewed", is you must instill a sense of human dignity that extends to all people not just a few who agree with your point of view. Or, some would say, you must pay the cost of your freedoms. If you can find a society or a forum where neither extreme, freedom or absolute control, exists, please let everyone know.





"If this sort of obscenity is okay and easily explained to your children, well that's great. Me, I think children should enjoy their innocence for as long as possible before the crap we allowed to happen hits them in the face."



By reading your statement you seem to be saying a free society is an "obscenity". I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but none the less, I would hope you can teach your children the difference between what is morally corrupt and what is morally correct. And, that you alone are not the sole abritrator for someone else. I think we all agree posting the photos on the forum was more "corrupt" than "correct" but do not set up a straw man which is too easily attacked and torn down.



I would, however, appreciate someone pointing out where anyone said that posting those photos on this forum was "OK". Or, that teaching your children such things exist, either what was posted or what constitutes a free society, would be easy. Freedom is never easy.


Finally, Rantz, you've never stated you have children. But, should that be the case, after reading that statement I sincerely hope no one offers them candy or asks them to help find their lost puppy. Children need the knowledge that less than perfectly intentioned people want to do them harm.


I can't help but think knowledge is a tool. Blindness to the facts is nothing more than accepted ignorance. How to use a tool correctly is up to the person who wields the implement. A skilled craftsman can make something beautiful with simple tools.


I support your choice to boycot the forum until rules are changed. This forum is far from perfect. The censorship rules are a farce. As I've said before I can post the word "screw" but not the word "g-a-y". Which is potentially more offensive?



However, the exchange of ideas and beliefs posted on this forum are the direct result of the freedoms we share by choosing to come here. No one screens what is posted before it can go on the forum. That fact offers a freedom and a level of interchange which permits much of what we have enjoyed (?) here at Old Dogs. That it brings the ocassional affront to our sense of dignity is the price we pay. Society may not be free in your limited sense of the word, but this forum is free.




Finally, what an unfortunate time for all this to happen. Just as the "loon-er" cycle is once again at it's peak. That does explain quite a bit of what happens here.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2737
Registered: Dec-03
I say SHOOT em!

YEP.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4277
Registered: Dec-03
And slowly.

Jan;- You get my vote!

Getting serious - "The point I wished to make.... is you must instill a sense of human dignity that extends to all people..."

Absolutely.

The point about those pics, imho, is they turn other people into a means to an end - they dehumanize, and degrade. In an area of human life where privacy and mutual trust is an absolute requirement. One day our children will need to have something of themselves to give in privacy and trust. We look after them until they can look after themselves. That's not censorship. that's love.

Now, the question - what do you do with people who set out to demean & degrade other people....? Who couldn't give a .... for the wellbeing and freedoms of others? Especially the vulnerable? Do you protect their freedom to take other people's freedom away....?

"Shoot 'em".

That's the hard-line liberal view.

"Be kind to 'em, they're misunderstood" - soft-liberal view - then they just try harder to demean and degrade. And may succeed.

There is also "chop 'em into pieces and feed to the seagulls". But what did the seagulls do to deserve that, I've always wondered.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3391
Registered: Feb-05
My objection to the pics being posted here has very little if anything to do with morals or values. I have no objection to adults using "adult" websites. It's a choice that is available and to restrict it is a fundamental blow to my right to free speech.

My objection is that by allowing adult content on this particular website limits my (our) freedom to choose this as an audio only website at whatever time we are available to do it. More on that later.

I doubt that audio info and pics are showing up on adult websites and perhaps Kegger can speak to this but I don't think that the other audio websites are plagued by the same issues. I haven't seen it anywhere but here.

The issue is not restricting free speech but instead choice as to what speech I want to access. Through the internet we have access to information on any subject you can imagine. There are websites dedicated to the glorification of Hitler and as deplorable as you or I may find that I support their right to that form of free speech.

The resposibility here lies with the folks who run this website to keep it safe to access for its primary users. As I stated in an earlier post I work for a government agency and If adult material pops up when I'm checking the forum at lunch that puts me at risk of dismissal. Yes it is my choice to check this site but it should not be a risky one. I am choosing to participate in an audio forum and not surf an adult site and the folks who run this site need to join the folks who run other audio sites in respecting that or they should suffer the natural consequences of lost membership.

Well lunch is about over and I did not have time to gather my thoughts into a really coherent message but there you have it for now.

Really great to read everyones perspective.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3008
Registered: Dec-04
I, for one, am not such a great fan of free speech, per se.
The ability of anyone to say anything is limited by laws of offence. IE: spreading denial of the holocaust is illegial in many places.
Spreading of hate literature is subject to prosecution in many courts.
The KKK is ruled illegal in many states.
The spreadof child p-rn is chased down regularly by many enforcement agencies.

Yet the press can print anything they like and be usually protected from any wrongdoing.
Nice.

Anyhow, if you believe in absolute freedom, be careful what you wish for.


You might just get it.
 

Silver Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 616
Registered: Nov-05
Well it's difficult for me to carry out my protesting absence when my parenting and opinions are questioned and I have the need to reply.

For a start I agree with Art's post. Also, I'm not saying children would necessarilly access this forum, but some members may have their computers in view of their family and having those degrading and disgusting images appear could prove awkward. Yes Jan, I do have one child, actually an adult now, of whom we are very proud that he is a respectful, well mannered, decent and free thinking individual. I'm sorry I'm not as eloquent a writer as you and that you like to put more into my words than what was intended, my fault no doubt, but this: "If this sort of obscenity is okay . . ." was meant 'okay on this forum' as you believe it is something we should merely be prepared to put up with and not worthy of flaming the administrator. I disagree completely. The adminstrator has often stated he is considering the use of moderators. Posters have been pleading for them for quite a while, yet still he does nothing other than deleting offending posts and prevent images being posted for a few hours.

Yes, it is our choice to use this forum, but it is also our right to expect reasonable content and control over what is allowed and what is not. The point is that I have never seen such filth on other forums. And those images, as you say, are how children are made, are nothing but filth. Images of how children are made should be beautiful - not degrading and ugly. Okay, that may be my opinion. I'n not a wowser, I've had my share of ogling p-rn in my days with my pals over a few beers like many others. There's a time and place for it - if one must have it - and this forum is not the place - as you tentatively seem to agree - yet you defend the adminstrator for doing nothing. Any forum administrator (especially those forums meant for decent purposes) should have a responsability to keep control. If they set up a forum and are away for long periods then there is a need for moderators (John A - I do not understand you reasons against the use of moderators).

"Society may not be free in your limited sense of the word, but this forum is free."

Excuse my lack of intelligence!
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3011
Registered: Dec-04
I doubt the lack of intelligence, MR.
However, wishing things away and expecting them to be admonished are different matters.
The web is not going away anytime soon(I hope).
If I added up the crap ads in my junkmail over the years the total would be staggering.
But I expect junk mail, and choose not to open it.

Posts on the forum, however, yes, we would expect a modicum of control and censorship. The Admin is quick to censor the link to a forum for we the disgruntled(to follow and be deleted again), however technically unable to delete multiple posts from a single user all at once.
Maybe the offender used something special and is a whiz. Dunno.
But 18 hrs later, yeah, it got old.

And BTW, if you all think that kids may be exposed to this crap for the first time by stumbling across this forum, you have got to be kidding yourselves!

More likely the embarassment of having it seen on a site visited regularly by dear old dad!
 

Silver Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 617
Registered: Nov-05
Nuck

:-)

and I agree with your free speech comment. Good try with your forum, 'tis a shame the dogs won't leave this doghouse. However,if it does get going I'll see you there.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3014
Registered: Dec-04
Well, heck, we need you to help!

hifi.17.forumer.com
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3015
Registered: Dec-04
It's dogaudio.
Old dogs and young pups.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1515
Registered: Oct-04
John A - seagulls will eat anything. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3018
Registered: Dec-04
And process the worst of it in an expedient manner.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3392
Registered: Feb-05
"And BTW, if you all think that kids may be exposed to this crap for the first time by stumbling across this forum, you have got to be kidding yourselves!

More likely the embarassment of having it seen on a site visited regularly by dear old dad!"

LOL !!!!!!
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8697
Registered: May-04
Rantz - For the record, I'm still in support of your boycot. Tell me when it begins. I shall cheer loudly for you. As a wild eyed liberal, I love principles. As a matter of fact, I stop to pick one up off the floor whenever I find it has been dropped by someone. I have quite a collection right now.


RANTZ, RANTZ, RANTZ, BOOOOORAH!!!




I don't believe I ever defended the administrator for doing nothing. Could you show me where you found that?


Actually the administrator did something. That it was long in coming and disrupted our ability to access the forum without finding something offensive is not in question. He was lax in his duties. That is embarrassing.


That something more should be done to squelch such postings is not in question. The issue would be - what do you expect when you come here?


Obviously we come expecting nothing but audio. However, that hasn't been what we've found in the past. This is not the first time this has happened. More than likely it will not be the last. How people who wish to offend find such open forums is beyond my comprehension. But, they do. And, we know they find this one.


There are several radio and television stations which allow what I consider verbal p0rnography to exist on their airwaves. Some people find it very appealling. I do not. Ocassionally someone who I feel sells this form of p0rnography shows up on a channel I do enjoy. If I stay tuned in, I am far more likely to be offended by this hate speech than anything which was posted on the forum. I know I run the risk of being offended even on the channels I like. And, I know from experience what to expect if I tune in to one of the channels which peddle these p0rnographers. Just as I know what to expect on the magazine rack at the late night liquor store across from the bail bondsman's shop. So, I don't tune those channels in. Also I go to the liquor store down the street. I'm often disappointed by what a free society allows but that is the cost of a free society. I don't believe the administrator condones what was placed on the forum while I do believe the station owners and the shop owners do encourage what they allow on their property. So, I see no purpose in blaming the administrator for something he doesn't condone. He acted. Just not very quickly.


The TV/radio stations don't get my business because I don't want their product when it is accompanied by something I find offensive. I can't say the same for eCoustics so far. If someone else finds the content of this forum to be offensive and feels the administrator encourages or even condones the content I would say you should avoid the forum. You are free to make that choice. You should know what you are likely to find here. That is my only "defense" of the administrator. Otherwise, my hope would be he finds a better filter for such "products" and acts more quickly in the future to remove any blatantly offensive material. However, like John, I do not think one person should be in a position to find any material offensive. That appears to be the case with other forums. Photos such as we saw would never make it to another forum. Neither would many of the discussions we have had on Old Dogs. Probably not this one. That is why most of us come back to Old Dogs. We know what to expect. How we react is up to us not the administrator.



Amusingly, you cannot post the word "p0rnography" on this forum.
 

New member
Username: Blossom_dearie

The Other Side

Post Number: 1
Registered: Jun-06
Now Jan, even though you're a loyal fan who agrees I'm a much more sophisticated swinging bopper than that little Ms Kent trollop, your 'wild eyed liberalism' made me roll over in my grave.

Now even though he thinks I'm just a squeaky voiced has-been, I have to agree with Mr Rantz. Can you imagine if we saw things like that in my day - oh, the things I could have sung about - er, never mind. Anyway Jan my loyal fan, tell the administrator (if you can ever find him) to get moderators on board and stop this silly nonsense once and for all. Oh, and it's very sporting of you to support Mr Rantz in his protest even though I noticed it was quite tongue-in-cheek and a little dubious at best.

And keep spinning my old vinyl now, yer hear Jan. It's reassuring to know someone still does. Babe, you're my kind!
 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

Orlando, FL

Post Number: 1382
Registered: Dec-03
Off his meds again..........................
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4278
Registered: Dec-03
Looks like Blossom has been moderated. Or else she moderated herself. We shall never know...
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8699
Registered: May-04
Blossom - You tease, you! Everyone knows you're not dead. And, even at your age you're more alive than most of these young upstarts. Love and kisses, your's always, forever in my dreams, etc., etc., etc.

Jan.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3024
Registered: Dec-04
Have a sandwich with Elvis...
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1518
Registered: Oct-04
Over on the CD Player thread there's been yet another debate on the ups and downs of up-graded cables. Sigh. I mentioned the give-and-take to friend Verne in LA - and he reminded me of his infamous "cable party" three years ago.

Seems he and a dozen or so writers and engineers get together every month or so for a party and an experiment of some sort.

On the night in question, Verne said he laid out three sets of interconnect cables - and told the friends that they would have to rate them as to good, bad, excellent, etc. They all agreed.

According to Verne, the cables - this time just a pair of CD-to-amp cables - ranged in price from $1,200 down to $300.

Anyway - Verne set up his usual "blind test" array, which meant a curtain in front of his amplifier cabinet so nobody could see the cable-changes.

Then, he and an assistant went to work. They had three short works recorded on a CD-R - classical, jazz and pop - total length about 8 minutes.

the guests were given pads of paper and pens, to write down their ratings.

The cables were taken behind the curtain, and the testing began - A, B, C. None of the guests knew which cable was which.

After three rounds of testing, everybvody got together to compare their results. Verne says there was great angst, because nobody could really agree on any one cable.

Then, Verne says, the devil on his shoulder revealed himself. Verne had not changed out ANY cables at all! Indeed - he had played every round using his stock cables, which at the time, he says, were Cobalt interconnects used in one of the recordingstudios in which he works.

Well - that's gotta say something interesting, Dawgs! And BTW - Verne says several of the guests got so ticked off at him that they have not been back to one of his parties since! Guess they got royally irked that their choices and comments were all for nothing. . .

I believe the Bay Area Audiophile society recently did a similar test - and the results were so inconclusive that you could have flipped a coin to determine which was the better cable. Two Cents may know of this experiment?

what does all this "prove?" Nutting. Just a couple of experiments. . .and some big-time bruised egoes!!!

Respectfully. . .LarryR
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1519
Registered: Oct-04
BTW - the interconnects that I recently sent back West after a couple days of testing? I forgot to post that they were "Nordost" cables - Verne wanted me to hear them, so I did. Neither Mer nor I could tell the difference(s) between the Cobalt interconnects and the very, very expensive Nordost cables.

They are probably excellent - but just no on our humble system, I guess. Verne says they cost thousands of dollars - sigh. Good for somebody. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3033
Registered: Dec-04
If you believe that you hear it, then it exists.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3401
Registered: Feb-05
Sigh!!!!! The great cable debate could go on forever except that it would prove nothing. If you can hear the difference...then enjoy, if you can't...why bother. Neither they who can nor they who can't should be insulted or bothered.
 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

Orlando, FL

Post Number: 1383
Registered: Dec-03
YEP!
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1520
Registered: Oct-04
Art: Good! Maybe just once I can go to bed knowing that nobody on this forum is either insulted or bothered! Wowzer! That'll be a first! (double grin)
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4279
Registered: Dec-03
Larry,

Really nice story. But I am bothered.

"...he had played every round using his stock cables, ....
Well - that's gotta say something interesting, Dawgs!"

Yes, but not about cables, Larry. Or am I missing something?!

"And BTW - Verne says several of the guests got so ticked off at him that they have not been back to one of his parties since! Guess they got royally irked that their choices and comments were all for nothing. . . "

Well, if I had been one of the guests, I would have been "royally irked" about having been knowingly misled. And about wasting my time in a trial that my host knew was not going to prove anything. Maybe Verne enjoys "Candid Camera".

All,

I disagree with the following:

"If you believe that you hear it, then it exists." - Nuck.

"Neither they who can nor they who can't should be ...bothered" - Art.

"YEP!" - Rick.

Somehow, we've been here before, and think I recall that I am in a minority.

Put it this way - who will spend $5,000 on an interconnect to replace one costing $5, without caring at all whether it REALLY makes any difference?

That's $4,995 that could have been spent on something else.

There is a real world. It exists independently of what is in our heads. But we can learn things about it, and share what we learn.

Views to the contrary are dangerous, as well as being wrong.

[Steps down from soapbox].

[...Or, possibly, from high horse].

Sorry, folks, but I that's what I think. Most sincerely. From previous experience, it annoys people. But there it is.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3034
Registered: Dec-04
I doubt anyone would be annoyed, John.
But this might.
Placebo's are effective 25% of the time in clinical studies.
I wonder if those people were irked as well?

If the differences in cabling are demonstrated on a spectrum meter, then fine.
If not, then what?
'The soundstage is much deeper.'
'Vocals are much more clear.'

If you hear it, there it is.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3403
Registered: Feb-05
John, I fully agree. That story bothered me. I that most folks would be upset if aomeone invited them to a party to intentionally attempt to humiliate then. Verne sounds like quite the part animal minus the party.

This statement was made:

"Neither they who can nor they who can't should be not be insulted or bothered" Art

In direct contrast to:

"If you believe that you hear it, then it exists." Nuck.

I don't believe I can hear it, I do hear it. If others don't that's fine. What I find particularly irritating is the constant insinuation that some of us don't actually hear the difference and that it's in our heads. Quite the contrary we're not imagining it and those who don't hear need not feel badly because either they can't hear it, we all hear differently.

How many times have you been sitting next to someone in a car while they asked "can you read that sign, I can't" and yopu reply with the answer because for you it is easy to read? Was the person next to you insulted because they couldn't read the sign and you could? Not likely!

Another of my hobbies is birdwatching, yet another hobby where the differenves in folks ability to see and hear are right out there for folks to "see". I've never been birdwatching with anyone who was insulted or bothered by the fact that another member of the party could see or hear better than they could. In fact those with keener senses are often relied upon to make identifications. Audio is one of those worlds where egos are so large that folks would rather believe that other folks can't hear any differences rather than try to learn from those who do.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3404
Registered: Feb-05
Top paragragh I meant to say thet "I believe that most folks......

The wretched forum is having problems with the edit function.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3405
Registered: Feb-05
"Neither they who can nor they who can't should be not be insulted or bothered" Art

Should read:

Neither they who can nor they who can't should be insulted or bothered. Art

I guess we can't edit our posts now...?
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1522
Registered: Oct-04
I really don't think Verne understood what his "demo" would result in, ego-wise. He said that he was quite shocked at the reactions. . .maybe he's naive, or just out-of-touch (many people are) - but it's now in the past, and he's gone on to other things - and other friends, I guess!

All the years I worked with him and knew him, I thought of him as a nice, dedicated guy. But maybe people do change. . .

Personally, I have never said that there is no difference in cables. Mer and I have identified "some" differences in speaker cable, but not much.

The mere fact that Art and others can hear the differences they describe, while I cannot, only says that we either have two degrees of perception, or that our hearing is nowhere near the same.

For me - personally - anything higher than my Blue Jeans Cables is folly. But that opinion only applies to stuff in my house.

My Cobalt Cables may soon go bye-bye, anyway - a neighbor is installing SACD on his system, and I offered the 5.1 cables to him for $90. We'll see if he wants them.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1523
Registered: Oct-04
PS - Art - re your last line above - I have tried very hard to learn - and, indeed, have learned many things from this Forum.

Just don't take away my Blue Jeans! (double grin)
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1524
Registered: Oct-04
Overnight e-mails I forgot to read. This from Cobalt Cables (Ihad e-mailed them, outlining my system and asking their advice on any cable upgrades and what they might accomplish) They did NOT know that I have Cobalt interconnects as well as Blue Jeans.

". . .our belief is that the most important cable upgrade for your system is the speaker cable. This will produce the most noticeable improvement in sound quality."

Well, I learn sum-ting new ev-day, guyz! And here I'd been led to believe that the interconnects would make more difference. Sigh. Shows what I know. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8705
Registered: May-04
The sentence reads, " ... our belief is ... "
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1525
Registered: Oct-04
Jan: So?
 

Silver Member
Username: Two_cents

Post Number: 770
Registered: Feb-04
All this time, I thought her name was Blossom Drearie.

I learn so much on this forum.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4280
Registered: Dec-03
I agree with Jan.

Furthermore, what evidence do the Cobalt Cables people have in support of their belief?

"....the most important cable upgrade for your system is the speaker cable."

Whose system? Yours, Larry....? Mine....? Everyone's....?

Art, and Nuck. Thanks.

Just briefly, we cannot always take the evidence of our senses at face value. We can, indeed, think we hear and see things that are not there. For example, a difference tone is heard clearly but does not exist; there is no sound, and no source of sound. Our brains work out the difference between two frequencies and create an imaginary sound with the frequency of that difference, which is lower than the lower of the two frequencies of the real sounds.

No-one needs to feel insulted about anything, as far as I can see. Perception requires a perceiver, who has expectations, a state of mind, and things that are, and are not, of interest.

So different people's perceptions are different. Nevertheless there is only one real world. So things either exist, or they don't. That applies to effects of cables, as much as to effects of invisible magnetic fields, greenhouse gases, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. We can't just say "Well, I believe it, so it is true for me". As I said, that position is dangerous.

I forget the thread on which we got into all this before. It could be this one.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4281
Registered: Dec-03
Well, I 've just re-read that post.

Lighter topic; strong recommendation of really fine book.

Kessler, K. and Harris, S. Sound Bites. 50 Years of Hi-Fi News. IPC Media. 2005. ISBN 0-86296-242-0

Would suit any Old Dog. But Jan, especially. He should have been asked to write!
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1526
Registered: Oct-04
John A - the Cobalt description was in reply to my posting - outlining what gear I had, and asking what they thought would make the most improvement, cable-wise. So - in this case - the "belief" was for my Cambridge CD, NAD receiver and B&W speakers.

Easy come, easy go - neighbor just came over and offered me $80 for the Cobalts - I said how about $85, and the cables were gone - a nice, $75 profit for me. Won't miss them - I really prefer the Blue Jeans cables, as does Mer. IMHO, for MY system!

Anyway, I get a kick out of how really upset people get over the cable issue! My Rantz is missing another hissing. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1527
Registered: Oct-04
John A - just one more point before I get off this topic!

What Verne said the "non-test" proved to him was that all these "sound-educated" people thought they heard differences time after time - when it was all the same cables - no difference. And that, he told me, proved to him that the huge "my cable is better than your cable" fight is hogwash. HIs words - not mine!

End of topic for me, with respect to all.
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8706
Registered: May-04
I'm at a loss for words. I'm not sure whether Rantz is in boycot mode, so I don't know whether to cheer him as I had promised, or not. If I cheer, yet he's not here, who's to hear?


Which brings up the point of boycots. When will Rantz know when it is safe to come back to the forum? Should he come back before it is safe, wouldn't his boycot be for not? Wouldn't that violate his princple of boycotting until action is taken? How will he know action has been taken? When he comes back, shall we all assume there is no longer any danger? Should he come back, we shall assume it is safe. Yet the danger is made present, shall we then blame Rantz for offending us? This civil disobedience is complicated stuff, to be sure!


This somewhat reminds me of the boycots of the large food chains which continued until the grocer put chicken on sale for 19 cents a pound. Then all is forgiven.


Of course, this has nothing to do with cables or blue jeans.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3040
Registered: Dec-04
Just briefly, we cannot always take the evidence of our senses at face value. We can, indeed, think we hear and see things that are not there. For example, a difference tone is heard clearly but does not exist; there is no sound, and no source of sound. Our brains work out the difference between two frequencies and create an imaginary sound with the frequency of that difference, which is lower than the lower of the two frequencies of the real sounds.-John A

If Nuck gets drunk and falls down in the forest, does anybody hear?

Easy come, easy go - neighbor just came over and offered me $80 for the Cobalts - I said how about $85, and the cables were gone - a nice, $75 profit for me. Won't miss them - I really prefer the Blue Jeans cables, as does Mer. IMHO, for MY system-Larry.
So you DO hear a difference, Lar! You both prefer the sounds of the BJeans cables!
Well good.Enjoy.

Busily stirring the pot.

MR is with us in spirit.
Oh wait, hes not departed this world, just this forum!
That was Elvis.
And Dearie.(sp?).
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1528
Registered: Oct-04
Nuck: No, my friend, Mer and I do not "prefer" the "sounds" of Blue Jeans Cables. We can't tell the difference, and because we had an extra set of cables, well, it was easy to sell them and take Mer out for a well-deserved dinner! (grin) That's about how seriously we take all this cable-debacle. For us, it would seem, wire is wire, and if it is of good quality, it works. If it is not, well, it may leave something to be desired.

Hi-end FM and TV studios where I've worked all use Belden cables of various sizes and shapes - and it all works wonderfully. works for me, too. . .

Sigh - Blue Jeans cables don't "sound" at all. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1529
Registered: Oct-04
Nuck: adding an important point here. The reason that Mer and I "prefer" Blue Jeans cables is that they're not as bulky and stiff as the Cobalt cables - much easier to work with - and for me, they have better connectors! Canare connectors work well, and stay put! As good as it gets - for me, sir. . .
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3047
Registered: Dec-04
Roxy MGot that Larry.
A good fit all around!
About time you got the chick out again, hehe.
A glass of wine arterwards, some nice music, dim the lights.

'I say go,
she say yes, dim the lights, you can guess the rest.'

Love is the drug, Roxy Music.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1530
Registered: Oct-04
The Truth About Interconnects and Cables

by Rod Elliott from Elliot Sound Products



Introduction



"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing."



The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams



The above could just as easily be re-phrased - for example ...



"I refuse to prove that my cables will make your system sound better", says the snake oil vendor, "for proof denies faith, and without faith, you will hear nothing."



The tenets of faith are an absolute requirement for many of the claims that are made for many (probably most) of the "esoteric" hi-fi additions that you will find everywhere on the web. There is no real information, technical, scientific or otherwise, and the only terms you will hear will be of a subjective nature - for example "solid, sparkling, sweet, musical" will be contrasted with "muffled, veiled, grainy, harsh" - the very selection of the words is designed to sway you to their position, preferably subconsciously.



The marketing is often very subtle, and extremely persuasive, and there is no confusing techno-talk in there to confuse the non technical reader. While it may seem like Nirvana, the claims are nearly all completely false.

Faith (in the religious sense) is based on the premise that faith is God's proof that God's existence is truth and does not rely on facts. Indeed, if facts were available, then faith is not required - so in a sense, faith can be seen to be based on an absence of evidence - a fiction.



Believers may also qualify faith as either representing truth or they will represent it as being above and beyond our understanding. Truth becomes a consequence of faith which is the believer's recognition of the absence of evidence. Truth is therefore defined according to a circular perception.



I am not about to dispute the religious beliefs of anyone - these are sacrosanct, and belong to the individual alone. When the same arguments are used for audio, this is a different matter. Audio (unlike religious beliefs) is based on science. Without the efforts of scientific work and studies over many years by a great many people, we would not have audio as we know it. Now, we have charlatans and thieves claiming that science is ruining audio, and that we have to get back to the basics to enable real enjoyment.



You need, nay! must have! the latest shiny rock on top of your CD player, lest the sound be harsh, grainy, and lacking bass authority, and without the latest cables at only US$200 per foot, you are missing out on half of the music. But ... you must believe, for the magic will surely be dissipated instantly should you attempt even the most rudimentary scientific test, or even request any technical information.



Now, consider the situation with watches. Has any ultra-high-priced watchmaker ever claimed that the "quality" of the time told by their watch is superior to that from "ordinary" watches, or that the "sense" of the time has greater depth and more "chi"? Maybe they just haven't thought of that angle yet, but I expect that this is unlikely. The simple fact is that these pieces of jewelry are finely crafted and superbly executed timekeepers, but are usually no better or worse that "lesser" brands that do exactly the same job.



The situation with cables is no different - you may choose to pay outlandish prices to get something that looks amazing, and demonstrates to everyone how much money you have, but it will not make a magical difference to the sound, there will be few (if any) real differences in the electrical characteristics, and it will sound much the same as "lesser" cables, selling at perhaps 100th of the price.



If image is important to you, and you can afford it, then that is your choice - just don't expect that it will make your system better, and don't try to convince others that without "it", they are missing half their music or their sounds are being mangulated in some mysterious way that can only be "fixed" by spending vastly more than they may be able to afford.

Despite what you may read in various forum pages, this entire series of articles is not intended as a "beat up the subjectivists" tale, but rather a discourse based on research that I, and a great many others before me, have done. The idea is not to ruin anyone's enjoyment of audio, but to make sure that the facts are available, without the hype and BS so commonly associated with high fidelity.



The major (and well respected) audio companies did not develop their equipment using only their ears as a guide. Without exception, all the big (and very expensive in many cases) brands have been measured, probed, simulated, then measured some more - before anyone actually gets to hear one. How much of this pure research has gone into most of the overpriced cables and "accessories" currently available? I don't think I need to answer that, as we all have a pretty good idea.



So much has been said about cables over the past few years that there couldn't possibly be any more to discuss. Nice theory, but the wheel has turned a full circle, and there are now people claiming that there is no difference at all between any speaker cable or interconnect. In exactly the same way as the claims that there were "huge differences" were mainly false, so too are claims that there are none.



There is no "black and white" in this topic, but a great many shades of grey, and the latest update to this article attempts to clarify the position. Speaker cables in particular are still a major topic of conversation on many forum sites, and remain one of the more contentious issues.



A quick summary of the topics to follow (in the cable discussion, at least) would be ...

* Power leads will rarely (if ever) have any effect on the sound, provided they are of reasonable construction and are not inducing noise into (unshielded) interconnects. The only exceptions are those that use filters of some sort, which will reduce the noise floor in areas where interference is a problem.
Some leads are of flimsy construction, and may reduce the available power for sustained loud passages, however, the difference will rarely exceed 1dB in most cases.
* Speaker cables can (and sometimes do) sound different with a given amplifier and loudspeaker combination, even where they are well designed and of reasonable gauge. Excluded are very thin or extremely silly combinations - these will always do something to the sound, rarely good.
* Interconnects might sound different, but only if they use odd construction techniques. Generally speaking, all properly (sensibly) designed and well made interconnects will sound the same - excluding noise pickup which is common with unshielded designs.

This is not to say that some people will not derive great enjoyment from the fact that they have spent as much on their cables as mere mortals can afford for their whole system, but this is "enjoyment", and has nothing to do with sound quality. This is about prestige and status, neither of which affect the sound.

Try This Next Time Someone Tries to Sell You Something ...

Thanks to a reader for the suggestion, this is a wonderful way to prove something to yourself. Next time a salesperson tries to flog you the latest and greatest (and of course most expensive) cable they have on offer, just use this technique ...



Suggest that you would like to hear the cable in action before committing yourself. As you walk to the demo room with the salesperson, come up with 'spontaneous' bright idea - suggest that you swap the cables, and if the salesperson can correctly identify the 'super cable' that s/he so desperately wants you to purchase, then you will do so. Naturally, you will want to make the swap several times, and the salesperson will have to get it right at least 75% of the time.



There is every chance that the packet will never be opened, the comparison never done, and you will save a bunch of money. There is nothing dishonest about what you are doing - you simply want (and are entitled to) verification that the cable will make a difference, and if the salesperson is unwilling to participate in the test, s/he knows something that s/he hasn't told you!



Beware! If there is any suggestion that the cable needs to be 'broken in' before you hear the difference, the salesperson is lying! At this point, you should immediately let them know that you know that they are lying, and leave the shop. Cable 'break-in' is a myth, and is perpetuated by those with something to hide - no-one has ever been able to show that there is any scientific justification to the claim, nor shown that the performance has changed in any way whatsoever. Cable break-in is real, and occurs between the ears of the listener - nowhere else (most certainly not in the cable).
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8709
Registered: May-04
OH, NO! OLD DOGS IS/ARE IN A CABLE FIGHT. SOMEBODY, QUICK, GET THE WATER HOSE!!!!
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8710
Registered: May-04
OH, NO!!! OLD DOGS IS/ARE IN A CABLE FIGHT. QUICK, SOMEONE, GET A WATER HOSE!!!
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8711
Registered: May-04
Cable fights always reminded me of the Sharks and the Jets. Without Leonard Berstein's music. Or Officer Krupky. Which makes them rather boring, actually. Cable fights - not the Sharks and the Jets.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4282
Registered: Dec-03
Larry,

Thanks!

"the Cobalt description was in reply to my posting - outlining what gear I had".

Thanks, again; I was not clear about that.

"What Verne said the 'non-test' proved to him was that all these 'sound-educated' people thought they heard differences time after time - when it was all the same cables - no difference"

But you wrote, earlier, "After three rounds of testing, everybvody got together to compare their results. Verne says there was great angst, because nobody could really agree on any one cable. "

So, he failed to demonstrate a consensus about an imaginary difference. As I said in my first reaction, this proves nothing - about cables. Even if he had succeeded, it would not mean that real differences cannot be demonstrated by these means.

What a dope.

Enough for the moment.

Well, that's dispersed that confrontation of Sharks and Jets. I am still holding the hose, though.... I see another post that suggests a flare-up.

Cheers - Anton.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4283
Registered: Dec-03
Oh, good.

I agree with Rod Elliott.

Here is a link to another nice essay, reaching the same general conclusion. I shall not copy-and-paste.

Cable Sounds by Jim Lesurf.

"Gee Officer Krupky" is the only song from West Side Story that is not famous in UK. The explanation is that it was banned by the BBC. The offensive topics are now compulsory, and form the subject of half the BBC's output, it seems to me.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2738
Registered: Dec-03
Well since the great cable debate rages on I might as well ad my findings of the past year.

Well mostly I use pretty good cables, nothing to pricey.

I was given some nordost, xlo, and a couple others I can't remember of interconnects to try out.

I had been using some upper end monster that's no longer made and the XLO from a friend.

I tried the nordost solar wind between my preamp and amp compaired to the monster
I was using and found quite an improvement in the top end with more air, shimmer
but also much less strident then the monster and the bass became tighter but lost some.

I was happy with what the top end did and the bass performing better but not the loss.
I then put the XLO in there and got my bass back without the sloppynes of the monster
but did loose a little of the openness on the top end. A friend sent me some wire
he suggested I make some IC's with (copper with silver outer kinda dipped on) and
that cable is the one I now use as it kept the bass I was after but also the shimmer on top!

I then tried quite a few speaker cables with no real clear winner until I tried some
of the outdoor lighting 12ga low voltage thick stranded copper you get at lowes and such
for like $15 for 50ft, sounded to me the best in my system covering the whole range nicely.

Then moved onto power cords, and the only difference I could hear was when I used
a cord of less then 14ga, I have 14 now on my pre's and such with 12 on the amps.

For now that is my cable story and I'm sticking to it.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4285
Registered: Dec-03
From Amazon: sound bites

Reviews

From the Publisher

Hi-fi fans and music lovers have waited long enough: at last, the history of one of the most important forms of home entertainment of the last half-century has been written by the men and women who made it happen. They tell the tale from the first vinyl record to the iPod, from pre-WWII beginnings to the era of the download. Because the saga of hi-fi runs concurrently with the span of Hi-Fi News, the UK's oldest and most respected audio magazine, Sound Bites is also a celebration of the famed journal's 50th anniversary. Since 1956, when Hi-Fi News was launched on the wave of excitement about high fidelity reproduction of music in the home, the audio industry has boomed,retrenched, boomed, retrenched and boomed again. All along, it's been packed with larger-than life characters, people of enormous talent, technical expertise, bad haircuts, business acumen, warped humour and Rabelaisian appetites. And some less desirable qualities, too. This book is their story, in their own words, with contributions from the editors, top contributors and a parade of characters that range from electronics wizards to eccentric salesmen to crazed audiophiles. The story takes in Pearl Harbor and Las Vegas, London and Glasgow, Chicago and Manhattan, Boston and, yes, even Croydon. Sound Bites is both a matchless work of reference and a riveting read. Penned and edited by a writing team 'made in hi-fi heaven' - Hi-Fi News Consultant Editor Steve Harris and Senior Contributing Editor, Ken Kessler - it is essential reading for anyone whose interest in recorded music goes beyond simply flicking a switch.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4286
Registered: Dec-03
Posts crossed, Kegger.
 

Gold Member
Username: Larry_r

Naples, FL

Post Number: 1531
Registered: Oct-04
Kegger: Yep, I certainly agree with you on the speaker cables. Although I have Blue Jeans Cables, I'd have to say that, if one were to look very closely, they would strongly resemble the Lowe's 12awg cables that you use so well. 12awg about says it for us, too - we could find nothing better - for us - on our system.

Had to read your post twice - thought at first you had BOUGHT some Nordost cable! Whew! The set that Verne "loaned" me cost several thousand dollars, and I couldn't tell any difference between them, the Cobalts and my Blue Jeans. But then that's just me, and my ears, and my system. Sigh. . .

John A - what Verne "proved" is that everybody at the listening test thought there were differences between all the cables. He was surprised that everybody got so mad about first, the supposed differences, and then later, about his admission that he'd had a little fun at their expense. Sheeeessshhh!!

Didn't prove a thing about cables - but a lot about people's perception!

Sir, if you are able to point me to a legitimate double-blind test where individuals can tell consistent differences between or among cables, I would appreciate it.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3054
Registered: Dec-04
BTW, MR checked in over at the alternate forum, but we need company.And moderators.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4287
Registered: Dec-03
Larry,

"what Verne 'proved' is that everybody at the listening test thought there were differences between all the cables".

Sorry, that is a new one on me, too. From your description, I thought they were told the cables were changed, at the beginning, and that their task was to rank them for sound quality. They, reasonably enough, tried to oblige their host. One would need to know the precise question set.

Verne was, perhaps, tricking you as much as them. There are people who do these things. They are best avoided.

I assumed the trial was looking for a pattern in the ranking of the cables by the different listeners. If all the listeners chose their preferred cable at random, then one would expect no pattern. If there was a clear and significant pattern, then we would have a problem.

I admit I often don't get these things.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3406
Registered: Feb-05
"The Truth About Interconnects and Cables

by Rod Elliott from Elliot Sound Products"

From the Concierge desk at the Hyatt in Bellevue I must repeat after a friend of mine,

"hogwash".
 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

Orlando, FL

Post Number: 1384
Registered: Dec-03
Thank you Art. Well said. Remind me to put Mr. Elliott on the "No Ear AT All" list.

All cables sound the same! It's all in your head!

INFIDELS!!!!!!!!!

If the above were true, I quess we don't need that subwoofer cable recommendation from Jan, do we?
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3056
Registered: Dec-04
Concierge?
Hyatt?
Ask the concierge for a ride to the best Audio stores in town man!
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8712
Registered: May-04
My subwoofer cable choice remains a mystery to be revealed 75 years after my death.


The claim for db tests of audio components has been kicked, 'rassled and put in a figure four leg lock for decades now. So far no submission hold has been accomplished by either side. Even cheating hasn't got the bad guys anywhere in this match up. (Though the one test where the 300 watt Audio Research amplifier was tossed over the top rope was impressive.) What Vernnnnnne did wasn't a db test, if he told the listeners he was switching cables. That set up preconceptions and suppositions among the listening panel that they were expected to meet. This fails the most basic concept of blind testing. Had Verne blindfolded and told them they were going to take a ride in three different cars while simply taking them out of and back into the same car; would that have proven anything about the panels' @sses? As the listening test stands it proves only one thing about one @ss.


One argument against db tests for audio gear has been the test does not test the equipment. Rather it tests the listener. If Verne proved anything, this is a bit of what could be concluded from his poorly conceived gambit.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4289
Registered: Dec-03
"Had Verne blindfolded and told them they were going to take a ride in three different cars while simply taking them out of and back into the same car...."

Very good. Or, better, if he'd told them they were going out in the same car running on three different makes of gasoline... Then cheated by not changing the gasoline.

What a great book. Can't put it down. I posted an anecdote about Karman Hardon on "Old Dogs and their jokes". Perhaps you've heard it before.

I must be an anachrophile.

I have not found a chapter on cables, yet.
 

Gold Member
Username: Artk

Albany, Oregon USA

Post Number: 3408
Registered: Feb-05
Went to Experience Audio in Seattle yesteday...my god the analog rigs that man had were enough to have me droolin'. Hi end tables from Nottingham, VPI, and Clearaudio. ProAc, Dynaudio, and Avalon speakers. Audio Research tube gear...man I was in heaven. Even better were the record stores...oh lord I live in music and audio heaven. Tomorrow it's off to portland to pick my cables. Sorry to interrupt the cable war....just kidding!
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3063
Registered: Dec-04
Wait! I am down Art, Kick me, kick me!
hehe, sounds great.
Here's hoping Mrs. Art is so joyful!
 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

Orlando, FL

Post Number: 1385
Registered: Dec-03
OH NO! NOT THE DREADED FIGURE FOUR LEG LOCK!!!



If memory serves my correctly, the only more deadly move in all of wrestling was the Atomic Skull Crusher, wasn't it?
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3068
Registered: Dec-04
The original 'Pile Driver' delivered by Jimmy 'the anvil' Neidhart!

As an aside, my most sincere Happy Father's Day to all the Dads out there.
I am not in the club, and have no Dads anymore, so my best wishes go out to you all, a happy day for you and your children and grandchildren.

Now go BBQ!
 

Gold Member
Username: Rick_b

Orlando, FL

Post Number: 1386
Registered: Dec-03
Thank you Nuck!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4292
Registered: Dec-03
From me, too.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3075
Registered: Dec-04
Well for all the bitchen' and whinin', tain't a lot of visiting at hifi.17.forumer.com
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3098
Registered: Dec-04
Kegger, your invite still valid?
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8721
Registered: May-04
When I do the hifi.17 thing, this is what I get, "Unable to connect to database on 'localhost' with user 'xxxx'
Dear user, our technicians are aware of this issue! Please bear with us as we fix this bug!"
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3099
Registered: Dec-04
It has had hiccups.
I hope that doesn't last long.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4298
Registered: Dec-03
I finally got hold of a June "Stereophile", Jan. Nice magazine. It seems clearer and better laid-out than HFN, these days.

Nuck, I found your forum site. Please accept my excuses, and give my very best wishes to MR over there.

I am listening to familiar music, and recordings, with renewed pleasure and interest, these days. I intend to stick with the system I've got. The main improvement I can think of will be to get a better listening room, and separate the stereo from the TV. The problem there is we'll have get a second pair of Quads, for the TV, by popular demand.

The book "Sound Bites" was a good read, and an education on some of the famous names, innovators, and pioneers in audio. I enjoyed the short history and principles of, for example, acoustic suspension loudspeakers. There is a whole chapter on the LS3/5a, Jan.

There is a passing reference in there to "Absolute polarity", which can require switching + and - speaker connections according to the absolute polarity on different recordings. I am not quite clear what this means, and how one can tell the difference. Google is not much help on this occasion.

Hey, here is what you get with moderators on a forum:

General asylum - The importance of absolute polarity

The moderators feel that allowing this thread to continue, even though it may hold useful information, will wind up creating more trouble than it solves, and thereby detract from the purpose of this forum.

This is not the appropriate venue for discussion of this matter, and we ask that those with an interest in the subject, take it elsewhere (e.g. private e-mail).

No further follow-ups will be considered.

Thank you for your support of the Asylum.


Phew. Who do those guys think they are?! Now, that's what I call censorship!
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4299
Registered: Dec-03
Yes, Polarity is Absolute. This text appears on several web pages.

So what does one do....?

Switch + and - to see which sounds best with each new recording...?

Argh, no, just when I thought I had reached a state of sanity and uncritical enjoyment of music!
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8723
Registered: May-04
You buy a pre amp which includes a "phase reverse" or "invert" switch.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4301
Registered: Dec-03
Thanks, Jan. Another reason for buying separate pre- and power-amp.

But wouldn't a phase reverse switch would be better between the source and the pre-amp? Otherwise, you would be switching all other inputs out of phase as you switched the faulty one in.

I have a few CDs that just sound bad for no reason I can resolve. Maybe this is it.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4303
Registered: Dec-03
30 minute interview with David Gilmour.

Available as download or podcast. I PM'd Sem, and tried Rick, but he is not PM-able.
 

Silver Member
Username: Sem

New York USA

Post Number: 596
Registered: Mar-04
Thanks John. Got the PM, will listen to the interview later tonight.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kegger

Warren, MICHIGAN

Post Number: 2739
Registered: Dec-03
NUCK.

"Kegger, your invite still valid?"

YEP

Whenever your around or want to line something up shoot me an email.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3106
Registered: Dec-04
Will do. I can find Warren. Thanks!
 

Gold Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 8728
Registered: May-04
John - You would only be switching the other inputs if you forget to return the invert control to its proper position for the other sources. That's why it's a switch. Yes, it would be well to have a switch on the digital player (some do), but that preempts the use of phase reversal for the other sources. LP's also benefit from switching absolute phase. Should you have a good tape deck or sufficient quality tuner and broadcast stations, they might benefit from switching phase also. So the most appropriate place is generally on the pre amp. You can make up a small phase reverse switch box with a bit of cable, a small project box, a four pole/double throw switch and some jacks, if you care to try an experiment with absolute phase.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4305
Registered: Dec-03
Jan;- Thanks. I am interested. I thought of taking a four-way line switch box, which I have, and getting in there and resoldering the connections so it acts as a phase switch. I am a bit busy these days.

I just wish to grouch that record/CD producers should get the absolute phase right. What do they think their job is....? It's like these "synchronize" controls on DVD players. I do not wish to mess about tweaking things, continuously vigilant for the effects of the tweaks, instead of listening to music and even watching movies.

"Set it and forget it" should be the rule.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3128
Registered: Dec-04
But John, then everybodys stuff would act and sound quite alike, and where is the fun(or marketability) in that?
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4306
Registered: Dec-03
No, Nuck! -

You weigh, you decide, your compare, you worry, you think about improvements.

But there comes a point when you have to stop all that, because it gets in the way of the music. Which is the whole point. That's what I think.

Audiophiles can be like people at a live concert who spend the duration of the concert not listening, but thinking about whether they were given a better or worse seat than other people who paid the same ticket price.
 

Gold Member
Username: Nuck

Post Number: 3129
Registered: Dec-04
But were the tools and options not provided(or chosen) you would be at the mercy of the engineer of the music, a sound of someones else's device, and unable to choose your vision of the proper sound.
The inability to choose makes me uncomfortable.

Diana Krall's last cd needed a bump in bass on some selections. I so choose to correct those.
Is that so wrong?
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4308
Registered: Dec-03
No, Nuck, that's not wrong. If you like more bass, then do it.

The ultimate reference has to be the original sound.

What I want is the closest approach to that.

If that is not also the goal of the engineer, there is not much I, or anyone else, can do, it seems to me. You can only really know that more bass is needed, for example, if you compare the playback with the real thing. That is the engineer's job. He was there. He should know. If you like more bass than he thought was right, that's fine. Some engineers aren't listening, anyway, there's no doubt.

But I really do think we have, at some point, to let go of worrying about how the sound might be improved, and just listen - close our eyes, and forget about the system.
 

Gold Member
Username: John_a

LondonU.K.

Post Number: 4309
Registered: Dec-03
About "Am I alone in thinking music almost always sounds better just in stereo?"

I had the good fortune to be at an event, two days ago, where a 40-part choir performed all around us. It was unexpected; it was a dinner, not a concert. It was the piece I mentioned, ages ago on this thread, as an example of music that has to be all around you, and could not be rendered accurately in two-channel stereo.

Having now heard this performed, live, for the first time, I know this must be true. So do the few hundred other people there. I won't bang on about this, it is esoteric program material, some light years in genre from Diana Krall, for example. But it is as clear as day, once you have heard it performed this way, that the composer's original intention was to surround the listeners with the voices - there is no point in debating it.

Let me also add that this event was not for music specialists, not at all. Many people there would probably have run a mile if told what was coming up. Yet some members of the captive audience were in tears at the sheer beauty of the sound. That is not an exaggeration; it is true.

With music like that, I wonder if there is any point in trying to record it, in the first place, in whatever format or layout.

During the performance, I thought very briefly of my good Old Dog friends, our audio debates, and the specific question of surround sound. Wished some of you could have been there. But our discussions all seemed miles away, irrelevant, and, at that moment, best forgotten.

You can't put that stuff in bottles.
 

Silver Member
Username: My_rantz

Australia

Post Number: 618
Registered: Nov-05
"Yet some members of the captive audience were in tears at the sheer beauty of the sound. That is not an exaggeration; it is true."

So the wine was free, John?

"With music like that, I wonder if there is any point in trying to record it, in the first place, in whatever format or layout."

But isn't that the point in trying to record any music? So we can have the sheer beauty of the sound in our own homes?

"You can't put that stuff in bottles."

You can however, put it on a surround SACD.



You just knew I wouldn't be able to let this one slide. You old dog you!

;-)
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Facebook

Directory

Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us